I haven't been able to update my Graphics driver and I don't know if it needs one. Mine is a late 2009 MBP Core2Duo. Would I have to manually check Nvidia's site and download driver update for my (NVIDIA GeForce 9400M) ?
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does ML Bring Back the Snappiness of OSX?
- Thread starter superspartan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't been able to update my Graphics driver and I don't know if it needs one. Mine is a late 2009 MBP Core2Duo. Would I have to manually check Nvidia's site and download driver update for my (NVIDIA GeForce 9400M) ?
i dont know about graphics drivers,but...
I hope boot up time in ML will be better than in Lion..In is terrible in Lion ((
I hope boot up time in ML will be better than in Lion..In is terrible in Lion ((
Terrible graphics drivers? Or outdated graphics card? Computers don't last forever you know?
You people talk as if OS X animations were any sort of high end HD/3D/Iso-something/Industrial Light&Magic interface... Lion was not The Revenge of the Sith, CGI wise, you know?
Lion's graphic drivers were crap, just face it! My late 2008 Alum. MB ran games up to 2011 very well and games which included a higher degree of complex graphical information to process than any of Lion's animations.
The exact same system configuration, without anything else extra, is running ML very well. Extremely smooth animations.
Lion had a lot of problems which even by 10-7-4 they were unable to solve. Just as an example, Finder and Disk Utility would give me a totally different free space count on a brand new HDD. That's been fixed with Mountain Lion, amongst other things.
Boot Up Speed (Time in seconds)
This is something that I would love to know. My current MacBook Pro (mid 2009) boots up at about 48 seconds with Fantastical, Moom and TotalFinder applications all opening automatically at background during boot-up.
I haven't tested M.Lion yet, and to those who have; what kind of boot up times have you observed; especially with background applications launching at the same time.
Hopefully they are faster !
Thanks
This is something that I would love to know. My current MacBook Pro (mid 2009) boots up at about 48 seconds with Fantastical, Moom and TotalFinder applications all opening automatically at background during boot-up.
I haven't tested M.Lion yet, and to those who have; what kind of boot up times have you observed; especially with background applications launching at the same time.
Hopefully they are faster !
Thanks
Last edited:
That is because Finder does not include temp space used by Time Machine on a portable Mac in /Mobilebackups and Disk Utility does. If you check Finder free space and Disk Util free space you will find the difference is exactly the amount used for this purpose by Time Machine. You can verify this amount by clicking About this Mac / More Info / Storage (see my screen grab).
If the system needs this space, Lion will free it up automatically so it really should be included as free space.
I do agree this is confusing.
We have been pleading to them, to slow the eff down and do some core work and optimization work, every apple forum I know has a few threads to that respect...
...I have begun to wonder if there isn't a motive to force obsolete macs behind this...
See for example some of the replies here, one guy says half a decade old hardware, and it should have been replaced. So what exactly does the average life of our macs should be according to this guy? If five years (half a decade...nice how he puts it) is something that should have been replaced, then he suggest that on average we should change macs every 3.5-4 years. That's like ipod time frame.
Since when should a mac last as long as an ipod? But you see that's the kind of mentality apple is fostering. I am soon going be spending in a time of world wide crises a hell of a lot of money for retina macbook pro and I ll have some bozo in 4 years when my system runs and feels slow to tell me isn't it time you 'd replaced your almost half a decade old hardware.
I am sure the accountants won't have any problem, us users? Ugghhh...
Depends on the available hardware below the OS.
For instance:
The original Filevault used the CPU to handle the encryption and it was pretty slow. Filevault 2 was able to leverage hardware based encryption in Sandy Bridge to dramatically speed things up.
Quicktime encoding in ML is going to be faster with Sandy Bridge as well because it to will leverage hardware acceleration.
You can keep a computer for 5 years but there's a limit to the amount of optimization than can happen and often it makes more sense to leverage hardware acceleration which usually comes in newer models.
For instance:
The original Filevault used the CPU to handle the encryption and it was pretty slow. Filevault 2 was able to leverage hardware based encryption in Sandy Bridge to dramatically speed things up.
Quicktime encoding in ML is going to be faster with Sandy Bridge as well because it to will leverage hardware acceleration.
You can keep a computer for 5 years but there's a limit to the amount of optimization than can happen and often it makes more sense to leverage hardware acceleration which usually comes in newer models.
Yeah well it all boils down to that it depends on their hardware if it's useful to apple to make people buy newer and more macs, or if it's only apple's hardware, because in your example filevault won't work with hardware encryption on current ssd's. The hardware can do it, but apple want to tax the cpu instead cause they can't be bothered to support it...
http://superuser.com/questions/359928/ssd-with-fast-and-strong-hardware-encryption/359936#359936
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3585688?start=0&tstart=0
http://superuser.com/questions/359928/ssd-with-fast-and-strong-hardware-encryption/359936#359936
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3585688?start=0&tstart=0
anandtech.com said:
Apple doesn't need to support hardware encryption on the SSD when they've got Core Storage which allows them to utilize FileVault on external drives (including thumb USB drives). That way they can deliver a consistent feature-set without being beholden to a particular class of SSD (which feature hardware encryption)
Of course new hardware is always going to deliver benefits over but Apple does indeed optimize and improve features that can utilized on older systems as well.
when a drive supports it and all apple need to do is get a couple of guys to write a bunch of drivers they should just do that. Hardware encryption dwarfs software one in terms of security and robustness and it doesn't tax the cpu. 
My point though is more general, when apple can't be bothered to write good drivers and properly support their os in older macs the hardware is old, when there's new hardware apple still won't write a buch of drivers. Lion relies too much on ssd's and the memory management system has gone to **** and thus hard drive macs suffer, but apple won't fix that, because they want you to buy new macs with ssds, they don't want a better memory managing os.
My point though is more general, when apple can't be bothered to write good drivers and properly support their os in older macs the hardware is old, when there's new hardware apple still won't write a buch of drivers. Lion relies too much on ssd's and the memory management system has gone to **** and thus hard drive macs suffer, but apple won't fix that, because they want you to buy new macs with ssds, they don't want a better memory managing os.
To reply the thread question:
Definitely ML feels snappier then Lion. It is a still a beta, there are some bugs, but from testing in last few weeks, it works very well.
I must say that I am happy with the safari 6, which is now my main browser after long time using Chrome. Will he be the snappiest OS it is still unknown, will see after few updates and public release. Even SL needed some time. But it has a good starting point.
To latest hardware/software support discussion:
First of all, off course, newer is always better there is no question about it, but hey guys, machines from few years back are still some good machines to do with. Big percentage of users only do some normal basic stuff, which include browsing, office and things like that. Dunno if its the best comparison but I still have some c2d desktop win machine from late 2007, and it works just great. Win 8 works fluid, programs work just fine, and I still believe it will for quite some time. So, I do think Apple should be more supportive to older machines. At least for OS supports. Not everyone can purchase new ones after just year or two, and for normal usage dont even see the point. Reasonable things are to upgrade ram, and SSD, but for me complete new computer for just 15% boost isnt profitable. But okey thats just me, respect those which is, just think Apple should have in mind to users with older machines.
Definitely ML feels snappier then Lion. It is a still a beta, there are some bugs, but from testing in last few weeks, it works very well.
I must say that I am happy with the safari 6, which is now my main browser after long time using Chrome. Will he be the snappiest OS it is still unknown, will see after few updates and public release. Even SL needed some time. But it has a good starting point.
To latest hardware/software support discussion:
First of all, off course, newer is always better there is no question about it, but hey guys, machines from few years back are still some good machines to do with. Big percentage of users only do some normal basic stuff, which include browsing, office and things like that. Dunno if its the best comparison but I still have some c2d desktop win machine from late 2007, and it works just great. Win 8 works fluid, programs work just fine, and I still believe it will for quite some time. So, I do think Apple should be more supportive to older machines. At least for OS supports. Not everyone can purchase new ones after just year or two, and for normal usage dont even see the point. Reasonable things are to upgrade ram, and SSD, but for me complete new computer for just 15% boost isnt profitable. But okey thats just me, respect those which is, just think Apple should have in mind to users with older machines.
You should replace your Mac when it no longer is adequate for your use. If your computer feels slow after 5 years, or if you feel left out by software upgrades then yes, maybe it's time to upgrade. That's just common sense.
Electronics have a finite lifespan that tends to shorten as time goes by. Yes, I used my IIsi and SE/30 far into the PPC era (for more than half a decade in fact). But now I replace them as soon as I feel the need to. I don't feel entitled and I don't whine about progress.
It makes economical sense too. As Macs get more popular they retain their value less (still miles better than any PC of course) over time. The sweet point of when to replace your hardware compresses.
This sweet point between personal preference and economics are of course different to different people. But it is safe to say that if you feel like half a decade old hardware entitles you to the same experience as contemporary hardware running newer software you simply have an unrealistic way of looking at things.
Don't emphasize common sense things then, unless you thing you are talking to idiots (which is exactly what you think) and you feel like condescending them.
You can feel whatever you want about your devices, call it enntitlement or not, or whatever. Fact remains a 2007 mac should not fly with windows and be a dog on os x. But that's the case with lion. Another fact of the matter remains that if apple issue an os that can run perfectly well on some macs (mac pros) with some drivers they should bloody well update their drivers and support their computers.
And let me tell you something else about contemporary hardware, I haven't had a mac feel less responsive than the contemporary base mac mini I bought a couple of months ago, I ll be throwing ssds and memory upgrades to 16gb real soon because the os is a dog.
No one feels entitled to the speed of a current mac for a 5 year old one.
What people feel entitled to, as they very well should, is that a mac that flies and is responsive in one os doesn't become a dog in the next one for no other reason that apple slap features (of very dubious quality and necessity most of them) on top failing to allocate the appropriate resources to optimize it.
Now you can condensed all you want and construct straw men arguments that people feel entitled that their 5 year old mac runs as well as a current model...
Mid-2007 iMac- bog standard entry-level model and 4GB of RAM.
Quick Look and Expose on Leopard and Snow Leopard: completely smooth
Quick Look and Mission Control on Lion: stuttering and almost unusable
There are several threads on Apple forums and other websites from people with much more powerful, up-to-date Macs than me who have similar beefs with Mission Control.
Obsolescence is part and parcel of computer ownership but the basics like zooming etc should still be fine.
Quick Look and Expose on Leopard and Snow Leopard: completely smooth
Quick Look and Mission Control on Lion: stuttering and almost unusable
There are several threads on Apple forums and other websites from people with much more powerful, up-to-date Macs than me who have similar beefs with Mission Control.
Obsolescence is part and parcel of computer ownership but the basics like zooming etc should still be fine.
As I said in the Lion thread, currently even the most recent models of Macbook Air, MBP and retina MBP were not smooth when I tried them out in the Apple Store - opening and closing folders is a good test, I've never seen that done smoothly first time on a laptop, or switching between launchpad screens. Any improvement in Mountain Lion would be appreciated but I really would only say the problem has been sorted when I can't tell if the Integrated or Discrete card are running through the smoothness of the UI. Then I could turn on GPU switching and use the discrete card for what it's meant for - handling intense and 3D graphics, not fades and slides that a ten year old windows laptop could produce more smoothly on powerpoint!
funny thing I just noticed, Mountain Lion's xbench score is way worse than Lion's/Snow Leopard's on my C2D iMac 27". I'm quite surprised and somewhat disappointed... Animations, apart from Facebook scrolling in Safari and Mission Control with more than 10 windows are silky smooth though.
I'm sure a year is enough time. Apple has a HUGE budget and obviously a lot of talent. And also they have fixed spec products. OS X isn't like Windows where MS has no idea what kind of computers they'll need to optimize their OS for. Apple knows exactly which of their computers are running what processor, motherboard, gpu, etc. They can do all the fine detailing they want.
As for loss of snappiness, I've never noticed any loss in Lion and wasn't disappointed in Lion in any way. Everything ran fine before and now runs fine as well.
To the OP, you do have a pretty outdated setup BUT you have an SSD. It's not like you're asking about serious editing on FCP. You're just asking about booting an OS, which I'm sure C2D is more than capable of doing. I have, I believe the same, iMac as you running Lion and everything seems fine on there. Runs just like any other previous versions, but not on an SSD. I'm sure it's a little slower but nothing noticeably different than before.
By any chance have you been just upgrading over the OS on every new install? When Lion came out I did a clean install of Lion by using a method I found somewhere online. Maybe that's why?
Placebo effect.Mountain Lion is pumped Lion with extra features in one year you cannot make a "new" OS.